GM Ignition Recall Snowballing

[FoMoJo]

CAFE hasn't been adding weight. He's saying that the CAFE standard is obviously pushing automakers to shed weight in their cars while safety standards are indirectly pushing them to add weight. The only real way to get around it is to use high strength, expensive materials, which pushes the cost up and up.

Well, I was going mainly by statements such as..."How do you lose weight when a lot of the weight increase is part of the safety requirements?  Side impact, front impact, roll over, 5mph bumper, 50 billion airbags, etc.".  These features have added weight but reading NHTSA reports, etc., the weight gain from these features are not as much as one might think.  A lot of added weight comes from sound deadening and other creature comforts.

[NomisR]

Well, I was going mainly by statements such as..."How do you lose weight when a lot of the weight increase is part of the safety requirements?  Side impact, front impact, roll over, 5mph bumper, 50 billion airbags, etc.".  These features have added weight but reading NHTSA reports, etc., the weight gain from these features are not as much as one might think.  A lot of added weight comes from sound deadening and other creature comforts.

You're reading too much into it, again, something has to give, you have safety, price, luxury and fuel economy.  Now we're looking to boost fuel economy by a significant amount, you have to give up other parts.  There's only so much you can give up on price at this point, and with so many things becoming part of luxury, I don't know how much people are willing to give up on that either.. and definitely not safety.  So what do the manufactuers do?

[Soup DeVille]

I just asked how much weight CAFE regulations, and now I will include safety regulations, have added to vehicles.  Not as much as you'd expect.

The easiest way to make a car use less fuel is to mke it lighter.

The easiest way to make a car safer is (in a nutshell) to make it heavier.

Making a car that's both more fuel efficient and safer is a more difficult proposition.

[NomisR]

The easiest way to make a car use less fuel is to mke it lighter.

The easiest way to make a car safer is (in a nutshell) to make it heavier.

Making a car that's both more fuel efficient and safer is a more difficult proposition.

Stryofoam cars.  The problem is if you put metal cars into the mix..

[FoMoJo]

The easiest way to make a car use less fuel is to mke it lighter.

The easiest way to make a car safer is (in a nutshell) to make it heavier.

Making a car that's both more fuel efficient and safer is a more difficult proposition.

The best way to make them safer is by removing the need for a driver...providing the software doesn't have too many bugs and contains the necessary failsafes .

I'm kidding, of course, but they...Mercedes at least...are working on/testing driverless vehicles.

[FoMoJo]

You're reading too much into it, again, something has to give, you have safety, price, luxury and fuel economy.  Now we're looking to boost fuel economy by a significant amount, you have to give up other parts.  There's only so much you can give up on price at this point, and with so many things becoming part of luxury, I don't know how much people are willing to give up on that either.. and definitely not safety.  So what do the manufactuers do?

I'm only reading what you wrote.

However, as I indicated before...and it's in line with what you're saying...reducing weight by using high strength and low weight materials is one way to go...i.e. Ford's use of aluminium in the F150 as well as smaller boosted engines, Ford's EcoBoost 3 cylinder 1 litre engine weighs only 215 lbs. fully dressed.  More smaller cars as well.

[Onslaught]

The best way to make them safer is by removing the need for a driver...providing the software doesn't have too many bugs and contains the necessary failsafes .

I'm kidding, of course, but they...Mercedes at least...are working on/testing driverless vehicles.

As an auto body man I'm 100% against this!

[Byteme]

You're reading too much into it, again, something has to give, you have safety, price, luxury and fuel economy.  Now we're looking to boost fuel economy by a significant amount, you have to give up other parts.  There's only so much you can give up on price at this point, and with so many things becoming part of luxury, I don't know how much people are willing to give up on that either.. and definitely not safety.  So what do the manufactuers do?

Maybe part of it is changing the mix of what people buy.  While I'll defend anyone's right to buy whatever They can afford maybe it's time for people to consider if they really need a 4,500 lb, 350 HP, 6,000 LB towing capacity vehicle to commute to work and go to the grocery store. 

[NomisR]

I'm only reading what you wrote.

However, as I indicated before...and it's in line with what you're saying...reducing weight by using high strength and low weight materials is one way to go...i.e. Ford's use of aluminium in the F150 as well as smaller boosted engines, Ford's EcoBoost 3 cylinder 1 litre engine weighs only 215 lbs. fully dressed.  More smaller cars as well.

Maybe part of it is changing the mix of what people buy.  While I'll defend anyone's right to buy whatever They can afford maybe it's time for people to consider if they really need a 4,500 lb, 350 HP, 6,000 LB towing capacity vehicle to commute to work and go to the grocery store. 

I think another problem we'll run into is physics.  When you have a heavy vehicle running into a light vehicle, the heavy vehicle always wins.  The only time where you would have the lighter vehicle winning is when you're running both into an immovable object like a tree.  So if all the new cars on the road is reduced to sub 2000 lb, you still have a problem of the old existing cars weighing more than double, and with a huge increase in price from lighter material...less newer cars would be out there.. so basically, they would be at a greater danger.  It would level out over time, but that's providing the automotive industry survives this.. and then how long?  Unless there's a forced c4c type program...

[JWC]

Maybe part of it is changing the mix of what people buy.  While I'll defend anyone's right to buy whatever They can afford maybe it's time for people to consider if they really need a 4,500 lb, 350 HP, 6,000 LB towing capacity vehicle to commute to work and go to the grocery store. 

They don't...but....

If they can only afford one vehicle and they have a camper or boat, they end up using the tow vehicle for commuting and grocery getting.  People will buy the things that support their ideal lifestyle, even at the expense of other things.  It seems now people tend to want new over used and smart. I had friends that loved traveling from the Bay Area to Lake Tahoe on weekends. They drove small economy cars during the week for their commute, but on the weekends they drove huge LaSabres, Catalinas, and DeVilles to the casinos.  For some, the land yacht would be a few years old and the daily commuter would be new, for others the reverse would be true. We are at a point where a majority of people seem to be embarrassed if they do not own the newest gadget, car, or truck.

I see it in photography. People who don't need an L-series Canon lens will waste $2K buying one because a review said it was the best---or because they belong to a photo forum and everyone tells them they have to have it or they are not a "professional". It is all a pile of crap of course. I dig through pages of specs to find the best lens for the price; the lenses that only run $300 to $600 and have the same specs and quality as an L-series.

[AutobahnSHO]

There's NO ONE who needs to buy a new car every 3 years.

Want? sure.
Afford doing so? Less likely.
Do it anyway?  Ok. [/America]

[12,000 RPM]

Re: Vehicle weights

A Civic today is essentially an Accord from ~15 years ago, interior space wise. Despite having "tons" more safety equipment, at the end of the day the weight gain of cars is due pretty much entirely to their growth in size, which is 100% a response to market demand. A Civic today is lighter than its equivalent Accord of 15-20 years ago despite having the same wheelbase and interior room.

Re: GM

My inner conspiracy theorist is feeling like GM knew this was coming and picked this lady to be the face of it all to curry sympathy from the court of public opinion. We'll see if it works. It's incredible that recalls continue to increase in number after all these years of making cars.

[Soup DeVille]

Without checking the actual prices and cross referencing to correct for inflation; my gut feeling is that a Civic is also as expensive today as an Accord was 15-20 years ago.

[AutobahnSHO]

Without checking the actual prices and cross referencing to correct for inflation; my gut feeling is that a Civic is also as expensive today as an Accord was 15-20 years ago.

20yrs ago the Japanese makes were still transitioning from econoboxes to mainstream. The Taurus was the #1 sedan from debut until 1995. (when they screwed the pooch with the dolphin/ dodge neon design in 1996)

Replaced by the Camry.

(EDITED I originally put 2005 instead of 1995)

[MX793]

20yrs ago the Japanese makes were still transitioning from econoboxes to mainstream. The Taurus was the #1 sedan from debut until 2005. (when they screwed the pooch with the dolphin/ dodge neon design)

Replaced by the Camry.

The dolphin themed Taurus actually came out in 96.

[2o6]

Some sources say the old design was easier to turn, which may have been an accessibility/design/ease of use/ergonomics issue rather than cost cutting.

[AutobahnSHO]

The dolphin themed Taurus actually came out in 96.

DOH, I knew that, don't know why I hit the wrong decade.

[AltinD]

I think another problem we'll run into is physics.  When you have a heavy vehicle running into a light vehicle, the heavy vehicle always wins.  The only time where you would have the lighter vehicle winning is when you're running both into an immovable object like a tree.  So if all the new cars on the road is reduced to sub 2000 lb, you still have a problem of the old existing cars weighing more than double, and with a huge increase in price from lighter material...less newer cars would be out there.. so basically, they would be at a greater danger.  It would level out over time, but that's providing the automotive industry survives this.. and then how long?  Unless there's a forced c4c type program...

You are ignoring a very important factor: Crumble zones on newer cars, that absorb the power of the crash before reaching the cabin

[MX793]

You are ignoring a very important factor: Crumble zones on newer cars, that absorb the power of the crash before reaching the cabin

Crumple zones only do so much.  When a 2500 lbs Fiesta gets plowed into by a 6000 lb Suburban, the Fiesta and its occupants will be on the loosing end of that collision.

[3.0L V6]

Crumple zones only do so much.  When a 2500 lbs Fiesta gets plowed into by a 6000 lb Suburban, the Fiesta and its occupants will be on the loosing end of that collision.

There's a video from Mercedes with an E-class hitting a Smart fortwo at 40(?) or so miles per hour. The Smart does pretty well.

smart car high speed vs E class

[NomisR]

You are ignoring a very important factor: Crumble zones on newer cars, that absorb the power of the crash before reaching the cabin

Yeah, but the cars today, cars yesterday all have crumple zones too.  And the cars today are going to stick around, and with the CAFE standard, if it forces cars to be lighter, they'll have to fight with the much heavier cars today with the same safety equipment... unless there's a huge leap in safety standards, cars in the future won't be safer agaiinst cars today. 

[FoMoJo]

GM recall 50,000 Cadillacs due to computer error...http://www.freep.com/article/20140501/BUSINESS0101/305010208/general-motors-recall-Cadillac-SRX-SUV-2013...programming error, that is.

General Motors is recalling more than 50,000 luxury SUVs to fix a computer error that can delay acceleration for three or four seconds.

The recall affects some Cadillac SRX SUVs from the 2013 model year with 3.6-Liter V6 engines.

GM says in documents filed with U.S. safety regulators that the problem happens when the transmission shifts from first to second gear and the driver brakes the vehicle to under 5 miles per hour. The company says a lag in acceleration can increase the risk of a crash.

It's good to know that GM can be honest about their programming errors...unlike Toyota.

[FoMoJo]

As well...

Toyota Recalls 1.9 Million Prius Cars Due to Software Error

Nissan Recalls Nearly 1 Million Cars for Air Bag Software Fix

After Toyota got its house-of-cards software problem exposed, and then got rapped on the knuckles, manufacturers are more forthcoming about their software/IT problems. 

[FoMoJo]

As for the ongoing woes of GM's ignition problems...Judge will consider whether GM committed bankruptcy fraud.

New York — A federal bankruptcy judge said Friday he will quickly consider whether General Motors committed bankruptcy fraud in 2009 by not disclosing ignition switch defects that are now linked to 13 deaths.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber also ruled he won't block a hearing set for later this month on whether nearly 60 class-action lawsuits filed against GM should be merged. He also said some owners of 2.6 million GM cars that have recalled could be entitled to file claims against the estate of the former bankrupt automaker.

After a three-hour hearing in New York, Gerber also signaled that while he wants to move as "expeditously" as possible, he said resolving the issues could take months. Gerber ruled that one issue that needs to be addressed is if the "old" pre-bankruptcy GM deliberately hid ignition switch claims from him when he oversaw the 2009 bankruptcy.

read more...http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140502/AUTO0103/305020067/0/auto01/Judge-will-consider-whether-GM-committed-bankruptcy-fraud

[FoMoJo]

Holy crap! ...GM recalls 2.7 million vehicles in U.S. in five new campaigns

Suddenly, they've become so safety conscious.

[VTEC_Inside]

GM recall 50,000 Cadillacs due to computer error...http://www.freep.com/article/20140501/BUSINESS0101/305010208/general-motors-recall-Cadillac-SRX-SUV-2013...programming error, that is.

It's good to know that GM can be honest about their programming errors...unlike Toyota.

My first thought was my dads '05 Highlander. On at least 3 occaisions WOT was responded to with a complete drop off in power for at least a second before it would accelerate.

I'll never forget the one episode because it almost resulted in an accident. Someone backed out onto the road ahead of my dad driving and he swerved and punched it to get out of the way and you could do a full 1 one thousand count as it lurched as if he had backed off completely before it started to accelerate again. At that point there was no longer any need for it.

[2o6]

There's NO ONE who needs to buy a new car every 3 years.

Want? sure.
Afford doing so? Less likely.
Do it anyway?  Ok. [/America]

GM's warrenty expires after 3 years on many of their products. That's around the time when things start breaking/wearing out for most cars, too. For some, it's more cost effective to change out cars every three years.

[AutobahnSHO]

GM's warrenty expires after 3 years on many of their products. That's around the time when things start breaking/wearing out for most cars, too. For some, it's more cost effective to change out cars every three years.

I'd love to see the financial breakdown on that.

[SJ_GTI]

GM's warrenty expires after 3 years on many of their products. That's around the time when things start breaking/wearing out for most cars, too. For some, it's more cost effective to change out cars every three years.

I know plenty of people with GM cars and that isn't even close to being true. 

Its OK to not like a certain companies cars, but why "be a hater" to such an extreme extent? GM makes some really good cars and some mediocre cars and some crappy cars. Just like every other automaker (to some degree or another).

[2o6]

What? How was that a hating post in any way?


Besides I work at a Chevy dealer, a lot of cars start wearing out, coming up on general maintenance at about 3 years, 36k. Tires, possibly some other bushings and shit wearing out.  That's with any manufacturer....

If nothing ever wore out, we wouldn't have to recondition 2-3 year old trade ins.


For many, it's great peace of mind to dump a car right out of warranty.